/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20714990]

Why does this shit make people seeth so much. Everything he said is right.

[Anonymous No.20714999]

>>20714990
Worker's victory is inevitable, anyways.

[Anonymous No.20715019]

>>20714990
I don’t actually give a fuck about communism but I support it because it pisses of le rugged individualist libertarians so it’s fvcking based. I fvcking love Mvrx and commvnism. Stalin did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.20715027]

>>20714990
Oh my god, not fucking you again. All you do is make the same low-effort thread. And he said himself that the book got out of date in its final edition. Its not relevant any more. How about you shill one of his good works instead of this accelerationist piece of shit

[Anonymous No.20715042]

>>20715019
>I fvcking love Mvrx and commvnism. Stalin did nothing wrong.
these statements are incompatible

[Anonymous No.20715043]

>>20714990
>TFW I agree with Marx and Engels's theories and overall assessment of society
>But I absolutely cannot stand any communist I meet and despise all the add-on bullshit they've slapped onto the Marxist car these days
Why must I suffer. I just want to escape capitalist hell without having to play along with mentally deranged trannies and "decolonize Tango/basket weaving/showering" weirdos or whatever the fuck academia does these days

[Anonymous No.20715050]

>>20715042
>being a leftcom
Ngmi. Sultan Haz will deal with you.

[Anonymous No.20715052]

>>20715043
agreed. i just want wage labor to end idgaf about "anti-imperialism" or whatever

[Anonymous No.20715058]

>>20715043
Look up Keith Woods on youtube

[Anonymous No.20715091]

>>20714990
>>20714999
>>20715019
>>20715027
Marx gets a lot of his fundamental assumptions that underpin his ideological framework wrong. He believed that human nature isn't real and is shaped by society which just isn't true and also operates on a purely materialist worldview. His predictions didn't come to pass and a lot of his core gripes with capitalism have largely been resolved through reform. There is legitimate criticism of capitalism but communism is a completely retarded solution that doesn't really have a basis in how people operate and behave but insist that people can simply be shaped to behave differently through enough conditioning/authoritarian cohesion which just leads to fucked up atrocities in the name of utopia.

The biggest problem with leftists is that you can criticize capitalism all you want but you have to present a tenable workable solution that creates way more problems than you are supposedly fixing.

[Anonymous No.20715243]

>>20714990
You will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.20715640]

>>20714990
>Why does this shit make people seeth so much. Everything he said is right.
because some cheka chad stole their great grandpa's slaves 100 years ago and slept with their great grandma

[Anonymous No.20715642]

>>20714990
nah most of it is 200 year old larping, it's obsolete. his critique of capitalism is great, besides that it's just as credible as the bible

[Anonymous No.20715647]

>>20715019
>Staling
>BTFOs lenin
>BTFOs trotsky
>BTFOs jews
>BTFOs anarchists
>BTFOs gays and trannies
did nothing wrong indeed

[Anonymous No.20715651]

Why does this shit make people seeth so much. Everything he said is right.

[Anonymous No.20715653]

>>20715091
Why are you giving a legit answer in a bait thread? You're just wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.20715659]

>>20714990
People don't like Marx because Marxists are some of the most annoying people around.

[Anonymous No.20715665]

>>20715091
>The biggest problem with leftists
the biggest problem with leftists is that most of them are white. white people are retarded and cannot be reasoned with, better just wait until they die out due to white genocide

[Anonymous No.20716708]

>>20715043
most of the trans or associated stuff is hardly marxist, social media is infested with that crap
if you want real marxism join an actual revolutionary party where people discuss actual theory and praxis instead of just whining on twitter

[Anonymous No.20716719]

>>20715091
It all depends on how you define this "workable solution" and what parameters you use.
Millions dying of hunger in a society that produces more than enough food ? Wars waged by imperialist Capital that destroys entire countries ? Countless deaths in the workplace because private profit trumps working conditions ? Are these not all forms of brutal violence that exist in contemporary society and inherent to capitalism ?
I'm not going to defend Stalin's purges or anything like that, but socialist regimes everywhere from the USSR to Yugoslavia to Cuba managed to achieve success in many areas where capitalism has struggled (reducing inequality, quickly creating basic infrastructure, etc) and their advancements should at the very least be taken into consideration.

[Anonymous No.20716750]

>>20715058
*Haz

[Anonymous No.20716810]

>>20714990

[Anonymous No.20716816]

>>20715043
Like bruh if you want that real Communist shit without all the CIA idpol bullshit on top check out Maupin, Logo, Haz, this is the future of American populism
https://twitter.com/CPIUSA/status/1504934319206244352

[Anonymous No.20716823]

>>20715091
The biggest problem with Marx is his retarded conception of the state and society. Historical materialism is just baseless, vapid historicism.

[Anonymous No.20716877]

>>20715027
>And he said himself that the book got out of date in its final edition.
quote or fuck off
>>20715091
>He believed that human nature isn't real
wrong, but feel free to show where he says that
>His predictions didn't come to pass
wrong, but feel free to specify which predictions and point to the pages where he makes them
>and a lot of his core gripes with capitalism have largely been resolved through reform
wrong, but feel free to show what those "core gripes" were, with textual evidence of course

your entire post is just you making shit up with zero proof, and it's not even interesting shit (you could make up anything you want, yet you choose to make it the most trite shit. why?). you're a perfect reflection of the state of this board

[Anonymous No.20717995]

>>20716816

Imagine being a communist and picking a side between the 2 capitalist oligarchies fighting. Le ebin Z.

Embarrassing. I'd send you to a gulag just for posting this.

[Anonymous No.20718019]

>>20716816
>Logo
Lol
https://twitter.com/EvanPlatinum/status/1548819641497030656?cxt=HHwWgMCgicHQwf4qAAAA

[Anonymous No.20718026]

>>20714990
Soviet Russia implemented every plank. Yet still, 'real communism has never been tried'.

[Anonymous No.20718033]

>>20716823
That's what aleays put me off on Marx. Completely ahistoric brainlet.

[Anonymous No.20718038]

>>20714990
Can we stop with this shit please? Communism's been debunked. Drop it already.

[Anonymous No.20718048]

>>20715058
> Using a youtube video to discredit a philosophical author.

[Anonymous No.20718053]

it is in our nature to desire more than the resources we've been allocated
when the state is what is doing the allocating, not our own achievement or work ethic, then we become unrestful
this is a principle

[Anonymous No.20718057]

>>20715665
Yet you follow a system created by a white person.

[Anonymous No.20718068]

>>20714990

>Everything he said is right


And yet starvation and death every time.

[Anonymous No.20718069]

>>20716810
Free healthcare is not communist

[Anonymous No.20718090]

>>20718053
This. And the human nature argument is all that is needed. It makes Marxists seethe and they call you a retard when you argue it because they can't handle the fact that any simpleton with common sense can btfo their thousands of pages of ideology and dream of a perfect utopia.

[Anonymous No.20718092]

associated with ugly dysgenic bug people who just want good looking people to give up some of their wealth, very little chance of redemption

[Anonymous No.20719590]

>>20716719
The amount of people that are able to eat because of capitalism far outway the amount of people that are going hungry. There's an obesity epidemic for a reason. You say there is a problem where we have excess food and some people still starve but the alternative is not have excess food and many more still going hungry. The solution that socialist/communists posit is simply micromanaging and evenly distributing food to ensure there is no waste ever which is a dumb idea as that kind of top down centralized control never works due to the inherent idiocy of humans and how much you would have to restrict people's freedoms in order to completely control who gets what food.

Wars and even genocide that destroyed nations have existed for all of human history and communist countries were happy to engage in those as well. Abolishing capitalism won't stop war or even large scale destructive wars. And I think safety standards in most modern countries are very high with very little workplace mortality. You have to go to countries where the government literally doesn't give a shit about it's people like china to find such bad conditions. And you might look at the exploitation and conditions in the third world but the problem there is the fact that a lot of them really want to work in those factories even skirting the law to do so because the alternative for a lot of them is rice farming which is actually fucking worse than those factories or nothing.

You can say these are bad things that are inherent to capitalism but you have to look at what the alternatives to this are and is your working solution fix more than it breaks.

I think more valid criticism of capitalism stem from what it does to the human mind when it becomes large enough scale that capital and companies outgrow the nation and real actual value. The complete destruction of everything outside of money and consumption with people reduced to numbers living in a cynical nihilistic world with no history, tradition, or sense of belonging simply being strung along with dopamine hits.

[Anonymous No.20719706]

>>20716877
Are you in highschool? Because not only do you are arguing like one demanding exact paragraph quotes as a form of argumentation lol. Even things that underpin leftist thought like human nature being shaped by society.

>wrong, but feel free to show where he says that
He brings it up for example in the theses on feuerbach where he contradicts the traditional idea of human nature with his dumb one that it's all based on society.

>wrong, but feel free to specify which predictions and point to the pages where he makes them
>Adhere to my dumb arbitrary standards or I declare you wrong! You need an EXACT page quote!
This is retarded. You don't need to quote exact lines of paragraph when you are discussing ideology lmao. Marx predicted that capitalism would collapse and be replaced but he got wrong that there would be a large amount reforms such as regulating businesses, improved working conditions, ect. One of the predictions as to why capitalism would fail is that people wouldn't have a sake in society and revolt but the expansions to voting rights undermined that prediction.

Retard communists like you just argue in bad faith, a lot of this shit isn't even obscure stuff you retard.

[Anonymous No.20719971]

>>20715019
your time is over, chud

[Anonymous No.20720051]

>>20714990
The most disgusting aspect of Marx in my opinion, is how narrowly he parses the matter of identity and the kind of violence that's implicit in that. Not only is this economic theory as I'm sure you know, but a fundamental framework for interpreting identity, one which places a generalized "worker" as it's fundamental unit. Not only is this interpretation essentially consistent with capital, perceiving the individual as a unit of productive capacity, but far more devious in it's call to this idea of class struggle. Marx defines the worker to the exclusion of every nuance of identity inconsistent with class struggle, defining every other means of parsing identity as either bourgeois, or regressive, and specifically calls for the dismantling of these identities by every available means. The family is bourgeois, for it promotes generational wealth accumulation, thus we must change the family. Traditional art and aesthetic sense promotes the statues quo of the aristocratic noblesse, thus it must be dismantled. Everything must be dismantled. It's terribly funny when you freaks shriek and claim the various horrors done under this aim as some sort of anomaly, because it's exactly and explicitly what's called for. When the Maoists destroyed centuries of culture, architecture, history, destroyed families and forced people onto collective farms, you either ignore it or say it was some sort of mistake. It's perfectly consistent with class struggle as identity, the fact is under that framework those things are in fact bourgeois, the do in fact promote such a status quo, and under that framework that is exactly what ought to be done. When the Khmer did the very same horrors, they weren't some terrible anomaly. They knew their theory, better than you do most likely. These people understood what they were doing and were committed. And still they did some of the most unspeakable horrors. Marxism is sterile. It's incapable of comprehending or even allowing for a depth of identity. You are frankly no better than the Nazi's as far as I'm concerned.

[Anonymous No.20720087]

>>20716810
You're a fucking pseud you amerifat nigger scum.

[Anonymous No.20720259]

>>20719706
>Are you in highschool?
no, but I take from that question that you're a student, which is a much more pathetic creature than a high schooler, you'll come to learn
>Because not only do you are arguing like one demanding exact paragraph quotes as a form of argumentation lol
how else to respond to people making random shit up about what an author believed?
>Even things that underpin leftist thought like human nature being shaped by society.
who cares about "leftist thought" when it's about as grounded in understanding Marx as your posts are
>He brings it up for example in the theses on feuerbach where he contradicts the traditional idea of human nature with his dumb one that it's all based on society.
stop obfuscating and quote Marx indicating that human nature isn't real
>You don't need to quote exact lines of paragraph when you are discussing ideology lmao.
you do when you're claiming an author believed something. you either show textual evidence or fuck off and stop wasting people's time with statements pulled out of your ass
>Marx predicted that capitalism would collapse and be replaced he got wrong that there would be a large amount reforms such as regulating businesses, improved working conditions, ect.
what are you even talking about? there are long sections in Capital dedicated to labour laws https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S6
you're truly pathetic. you're just making shit up as you go. and you're not even half decent at it lmao. you'd do much better if you just posted reworded criticisms of Marx from Wikipedia
>One of the predictions as to why capitalism would fail is that people wouldn't have a sake in society and revolt but the expansions to voting rights undermined that prediction.
haha, is this really the best you could come up with? giving voting rights has sure helped the tsar.
voting rights don't change the position of proletarians. being able to choose the personalities that will be tasked with enforcing opposed interests over you doesn't modify the fact that they will be enforced.
>Retard communists like you just argue in bad faith, a lot of this shit isn't even obscure stuff you retard.
lol the guy who hasn't read a single page of Marx and just makes up random shit about him talks about arguing in bad faith. hilarious

[Anonymous No.20720369]

>>20714990
Oh, sorry, I didn't see this thread, but I basically addressed this over here
>>20720217
>>20720283
basically, Marx had a deeply flawed understanding of what industrialization even was, and his prescriptions were antithetical to actual progress for all the reasons that I laid out in that thread. Actually, fuck it, I'll just cut and past the whole thing so that anons don't have to jump back and forth to see what I'm talking about...

Marx identifies things like factories and machinery as the means of production, and posits that by ceding control of these to the masses of workers, we'll be able reduce human suffering greatly, and end a cycle of exploitation. In reality, industrialization has its roots in the printing press, and a broadening of our technological capability to extrapolate on things which are inherently abstract, and difficult to organize. A machine in and of itself is useless without the zeitgeist that allows us to maintain that machinery in a high trust environment. Ergo, by simply stealing the fruits of organized and systematized investment, you're going to break the entire cycle of investment, production, and distribution. It's like cutting down an apple tree to feed the poor, and it should have never gained the traction that it did.

[Anonymous No.20720481]

>>20720051
Yeah, that's true. It basically goes back to a flaw that runs all through German Idealism, in that its evangelists will narrowly and exhaustively define terms until they've extracted a really all their own. They sort of just build a dollhouse that they think represents the thing they're getting at, and then they spend books upon books living in the false reality that they've build. Kant started it, Hegel criticizes how he does it, but doesn't really get to the root of the problem, which he himself is then guilty of in his own work, and then Marx comes along, commits to that same fallacious abuse of logic, and the implications are dire, because his ideas are prescriptive and actionable.

[Anonymous No.20720488]

>>20720481
*extracted a reality all their own

[Anonymous No.20720499]

Workers create all new wealth

[Anonymous No.20720512]

All profit is unpaid labor

[Anonymous No.20720573]

>>20714990
Reminder that marxism is dead, and that neo-marxism is funded by glowniggers.

[Anonymous No.20720606]

>>20720499
I don't think that's accurate. I would say that novelty and ingenuity create wealth, and almost everything else is really just moving wealth around and distributing it, so I wouldn't call anything else NEW wealth. I say ALMOST, because in a really limited sense, some wealth can be generated via pure exploitation, especially when you factor in things like slavery, and that's where what I'm talking about here comes into play>>20720481
So for a Marxist, or a lot philosophers in the style of German Idealism, blanket statements like "Workers create all new wealth" can be said with a straight face, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Wealth is effectively just a measure of value, and without novelty, ingenuity, and investment, most wealth diminishes unless it's protected with force. Capitalism and the rise of industrialization, as a consequence of technological advancement allowed investors outside of governments to create and protect value. Advances in logistics, starting, arguably with the printing press, created a higher trust environment where profits and productivity could be quantified and built upon. You can also trace a line of development back to the emergence of intellectual property as a protected asset. The ability to protect ideas, and innovations as a form of property is what allowed people like Edison to set up shop and do research, knowing that what he created wasn't just going to be stolen and reproduced, therefore making investment pointless. Another example is the development of Ford's assembly line, which required less of each worker, drove up productive capacity, and created an entirely new market- cars can be made more cheaply, more people can afford cars, Ford can sell more cars. Pretty simple logic there, right? And so there are all sorts of things outside of the workers themselves that create value, and therefore wealth.

[Anonymous No.20720660]

>>20720259
>Continuously insist I'm making shit up despite even citing a work
>Calls this obfuscation due to lack of MLA citation

Even using the same source as you it states that marx did not believe in human nature https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch04.htm . He believed in the abstract idea that man is instead shaped by the society or culture around him. If you want to get super technically his definition of "human nature" is not the common one where all humans are born with an innate set of behaviors that are natural to them. This idea lends into ideas that you can abolish shit like the family and marriage as simply aspects of bourgeois along with erasing pretty much all religion and previous culture.

The fact that you are claiming I'm making shit up and are so clearly wrong shows you don't really understand your own ideology.

>haha, is this really the best you could come up with? giving voting rights has sure helped the tsar.
voting rights don't change the position of proletarians. being able to choose the personalities that will be tasked with enforcing opposed interests over you doesn't modify the fact that they will be enforced.

This is retarded because fundamentally it gives people a stake in society when you have the ability to vote. Even if you want to posit that it actually doesn't in practical terms (which can be true depending on the system) it still gives people a perception of stake in society. But even in America where federal elections hardly matter it still matters a lot on the local and state levels, it gives people a reason to persist in society.

You're a retard like all commies yet are so arrogantly confident in your wrong positions.

[Anonymous No.20720671]

>>20720606
lol do you think workers aren't involved in mental labor?

[Anonymous No.20720681]

>>20714990
Because it seems so right until its not, in its practice in present and prophetic predictions for the future. Refer QAnon for a contemporary example.

[Anonymous No.20720711]

>>20720481
Yeah I absolutely agree, and I do think its the same shortcoming that underpins most ideology. The fact I think is that people define themselves in many ways that are at odds or contradictory, yet simultaneously necessary, and attempting to parse these down into one particular mode is almost always going to be destructive. I'm not a fan of capital either and I think many of the same criticisms apply however in a less overtly totalitarian manner. Capital itself does I think inevitably supplant and erase many orientations of identity that are inconsistent with its own model. At the very least this is true of consumer capitalism, yet to it's benefit I will say it doesn't as an axiom preclude the existence of alternate modalities in the way Marxism does. Instead it attempts to integrate these into its consumer cycle, which is destructive I think itself, inevitably leaving a perhaps materially prosperous but rootless and disoriented class of people. This being said, again it does not preclude the existence of alternate identities in the way Marxism does, at the very least allowing some basis for people to live and organize on the basis of shared interest, history, culture, etc.. so long as they remain capable of integrating into markets on some level. Unironically the Mormons and Amish are a great example of this. Anyway I suppose that's a tangent. There's also obviously the economic discussion when comparing the two which I didn't really touch upon at all.

[Anonymous No.20720734]

>>20720671
They are, indeed, and I think you'll find that the more mental labor a worker is involved in, the higher their salary, to the extent that their mental labor is generative, and especially to the extent that their skills are unique and sought after.
To clarify, I of course believe that workers create value. How much value is highly dependent on the system that they work within. If I hire a bunch of workers to clear a portion of land, and give them axes, they're going to create much less value per man hour than if I can afford to give them chainsaws. They're likely doing the same amount of labor, or, actually, probably a lot less if I can afford the chainsaws, so you can see how the value of labor is only one factor in the overall value of a company, but the same can be said for mental labor, right? The quality of the resources I can provide the people who work for me is a huge factor in how much value that we can produce together. If I have no resources? lol, nobody will work for me. They can start from zero all by themselves. They don't need me for that. Of course, the quality of the labor that I can afford, via how much I can pay my workers, directly correlates to how much value we create.

[Anonymous No.20720857]

>>20720711
Yeah, so capitalism, in some sense, is merely a signifier, right? Like, in the time of Adam Smith, had a very different character than it does, now, and in a lot of ways corporations acted as governments unto themselves. Some corporations in that time had so much power that they even had their own jails, and could act as judge, jury, and executioner. It was a really gradual and incremental process to get from there to were we are now, where labor is, in almost every way, voluntary. The interplay between capitol and government via regulation is a huge factor here. This is important in a lot of ways. In some ways it sort of limits the capitalists, industrialists, what have you, how much they are regulated. In other ways, of course, it makes what they do possible, because governments have a protected monopoly on violence, which allows them to enforce things like intellectual property. For example, there was a really impressive rash of black inventors that sprang up after slavery ended, partially because their intellectual property was protected, and they could make a real life for themselves and by themselves without being stopped by a racist system- so for example modern stop lights and also masks that protect against smoke-inhalation were both invented by one black dude, Garrett Morgan. Because he was able to get patents, and protect what was his property, his intellectual property, he was able to profit from his innovations. That doesn't happen once you abolish private property, of course, so, you know, innovation sorta just dries up.

[Anonymous No.20720883]

>>20715651
based

[Anonymous No.20720929]

>>20720711
oh, and to go a little further,
>>20720857
^This is me by the way, but I wanted to add something to what I was saying about that black inventor, Garret Morgan, because this is where things get REALLY juicy and ironic. So, lets say that Garret Morgan comes up in a system where private property is abolished, right? A fully communist system, and lets say, just to be fair, that this system isn't racist at all, right? And they recognize that he has this incredible mental talent- the kind of recognition that would be exceptionally rare in a system like communism, where labor is highly, highly regulated, and bureaucratized... but for the sake of argument, lets say they recognize that genius... well, in that case, they can't let him have the full fruits of his labor, ie, patent his work, so what happens to him? Well, he would end up working for the government, right? like, his only option would be to give his mental labor to that government system for a fixed, and probably unfair price... Think of the irony, right? Clear cut labor exploitation, right? Totally labor exploitation! He has no option. His mental labor, and his work, are totally exploited. Isn't that a kinda delicious irony? Sorta points back to the argument I was making to this guy here>>20720671
when he was asking me about mental labor. Hopefully that clears things up for him a bit, I guess.

[Anonymous No.20721781]

>>20718019
The Haz and Logos guys are pretty hilarious because they're anti-degrowth and pro-abundance and doing Adbusters™ magazine critiques of consumption, "naughty" coffee transanctions from, like, the pre-Occupy era lifestyle anarchists instead of, like, business owners exploiting work and wages to harvest surplus value from all businesses (they're doing this because Starbucks workers are forming unions and going on strike and they don't like it because they pickled their brains with Nick Land).

[Anonymous No.20721802]

>>20720051
>When the Maoists destroyed centuries of culture, architecture, history, destroyed families and forced people onto collective farms, you either ignore it or say it was some sort of mistake.
It was a mistake.

But the party makes all possible mistakes. "Truth" is constituted in praxis, emerging from the zig-zag of oscillations between subjective decisions.

This is what is meant by "failure is the mother of success" and "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit."

[Anonymous No.20721821]

>>20720051
Yeah the 1% create great things so thats why they should enslave the other 99% forever. If the europeans never got to china you would still have your gay ass traditional chinese society, so dont blame the chinese for having to abandon their tradition just to not be raped by souless snow niggers under colonialism

[Anonymous No.20721833]

>>20718048
keith woods is the kinda guy the other anon was looking for

[Anonymous No.20721844]

>we are warriors of the working class!
>also all the working class's values, your morality, spirituality, national identity, culture, even your family unit all must be eliminated to make way for "class consciousness" and anyone who disagrees must be purged
>working class: uuuhh...no thanks
>Y-youre just a stupid lumpenprole with false consciousness!
marxist intellectualism is truly advanced

[Anonymous No.20721874]

>>20714990
>Everything he said is right.
Because Marx was also racist and sexist as shit.

[Anonymous No.20722201]

>>20720660
I'll start this out of order to note that you just proved yourself wrong and that you're an illiterate retard waste of breath
>Even using the same source as you it states that marx did not believe in human nature https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch04.htm
The first paragraph of what you cite:
Marx DID NOT BELIEVE... THAT THERE'S __NO__ SUCH THING AS THE NATURE OF MAN; that man at birth is like a blank sheet of paper, on which the culture writes its text. Quite in contrast to this sociological relativism, MARX STARTED OUT WITH THE IDEA that man qua man is a recognizable and ascertainable entity; THAT MAN
CAN BE DEFINED AS MAN NOT ONLY BIOLOGICALLY, ANATOMICALLY AND PHYSIOLOGICALLY, BUT ALSO PSYCHOLOGICALLY.

now that the certifiable proof of your cretinism and borderline illiteracy is out of the way:

>Continuously insist I'm making shit up despite even citing a work
>Calls this obfuscation due to lack of MLA citation
I said it's not true Marx thought human nature wasn't real. you namedropped a work instead of pasting the text, and this is because in that work Marx doesn't claim human nature isn't real. yes, you were clearly obfuscating. and that's because you have zero textual proof from Marx that he didn't think human nature was real
>Even using the same source as you it states that marx did not believe in human nature
I never used this source and I don't care what it says, because it's not called "Karl Marx". why link works by other people written 80 years after his death? you can find people attributing every belief and its opposite to Marx, since many people operate like you do and just make shit up about him for their own gain. that's not evidence of his beliefs.
if Marx didn't believe human nature was real then surely he must've written about it. otherwise how would you know? stop obfuscating and give a quote
>If you want to get super technically his definition of "human nature" is not the common one where all humans are born with an innate set of behaviors that are natural to them.
you know the drill: quote or fuck off
>The fact that you are claiming I'm making shit up and are so clearly wrong shows you don't really understand your own ideology.
I'm clearly so wrong, but you're taking hours to produce a single quote from Marx indicating that he thought human nature isn't real. so much so that you have to resort to namedropping works that don't say this and pretend that they do, or quoting some random academic defilers of Marx's corpse as proof of what Marx thought.
>fundamentally it gives people a stake in society when you have the ability to vote.
no, it doesn't. voting can't affect the things that begin to matter to the proletariat as its movement develops beyond basic demands that can be granted by capital
your argument is equivalent to slave masters coping that there will never be slave revolts if you just let the slaves choose who whips them and which of their daughters get raped on a given weekday.

[Anonymous No.20722226]

>>20714990
He wasn't right about anything.
His labor theory of value is incorrect. Countries with the highest amount of working hours annually are China and India, some of the poorest countries on planet. The idea the labor time determines the value of a commodity isn't even empirically true.
His theory of immiseration hasn't come to pass either. People are living longer, working less hours in OECD countries - the countries Marx believed communist revolution would have most likely happen but did not. His theory on the tendency of the profit rate to fall hasn't bore true either since capitalists have been able to increase profit rates by creating new innovations, inventions and markets from the endless sea of human imagination. His theory that revolution, through state power, would liberate the proletariat, and lead to communism, was also non-sense, and just served as a reminder of the absurdity of socialism and the dangers of state power.
None of his predictions being true should surprise anyone. He wasn't even an economist. He was a bum who never owned a business or worked a day in life. He was privileged, a member of the Jewish bourgeois, and lived off Engels and parents. He never paid his own bills. His philosophy was a product of his life being a total failure, and putting his hopes into the ideas of utopians like Robert Owens to cope with poverty. Many of the people who follow his philosophy today are just as lazy and pathetic as him. Marxism can be summed up as millenarianism for atheists. The only reason why Marxism is so popular is because the elites know its not a danger to their power since it just re-enforces the status quo. That's why its taught in many state universities - its great for brainwashing people into be herd animals for bureaucrats because it robs them of the self actualization that is needed to experience freedom.

[Anonymous No.20722238]

>>20722226
More so, to add to my post before the autistic sperg in here rails against me, the idiots arguing about the need for communism, socialism on the internet are just losers. Its a form of escapism from life because they can't do anything to change it. Climate change won't be solved, and that has closed the window of opportunity for their socialist revolution. These people are all going to die before a revolution can happen, and the people they need to carry out the revolution will be sacrificed by heatwaves, collapses in food production from weather changes and loss of land from sea level rise. This is also not accounting for the other forms of ecological collapse happening to our wetlands and fresh water systems from micro-plastic pollution right now. Arguing with us on /lit/ won't help you, and you're already doomed to failure. So at this point, there's no reason to care or respond to what you have to say.

[Anonymous No.20722242]

the marxist propaganda is that people are mean, not inherently, but because they dont have the material condition to coom.
Once they are rich and have the easy life that humans want, all people are happy and hug each other.
of course the same humanist propaganda says that people who become rich are inherently mean, bc ''money & absolute power corrupt absolutely'' and rich people become selfish forever. It's impossible to stop being selfish alone, this is why all atheists want bureaucrats to make rich people poorer.

so you have the atheist dilemma: the atheist want to coom, they need money for this and they say money will make people happy. but once people have money they coom alone instead of making other people coom. Atheists also need a whole intellectual apparatus to feel mentally safe about their way of life.

This is because atheists and women have no morality beyond hedonism, but still have the deep desire to see themselves and being told that they are virtuous. However, hedonists know that they are subhumans, and since nobody tell atheists that they are righteous, they are addicted to self-made stories where they self insert and are righteous, ie ''because they say so'' lol.

Don't forget that atheists and women are natural born schizophrenic so they dont have any critical thinking in their lizard brain. IE they actually survive by being sex and drug addicts because they see nothing wrong with building a narrative in their little heads were they pass as righteous.

This is why also in atheism, the society is build on commentaries, by editors, journalists and the plebs, and the topics are female centered, ie about sex and crimes (and most against women).

Dont forget that historically in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality , and atheism was a propaganda pushed by revolutionaries merchants to make a society based on international commerce
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how christian monarchies are evil

this is why all the intellectualism in republics are just about ''how much the bureaucrats should control the economy'', which is just the most barren mentality ever. Bourgeois only care about money and keeping their property rights, in order to coom better.

[Anonymous No.20722257]

Actually, its easy to experience communism. Just bet like Marx
Don't work and live off someone else.
Don't use your own money by scheming people out of theirs.
And be so repulsive no state would want to grant you citizenship. Being Jewish helped him in that regard.

[Anonymous No.20722263]

Just read Kaczynski on leftists and you will know everything you need to know about their dumb beliefs. Its short and gets to the point.

[Anonymous No.20722639]

>>20722226
>Countries with the highest amount of working hours annually are China and India, some of the poorest countries on planet.
good thing you immediately show you don't understand the first thing from Marx's theory of value. value is determined by necessary labour given the average level of technology. if your available technology is below average, you're going to be expending more labour, but it's going to count as less as far as value of the product is concerned.
your misunderstanding is typical of someone who's never touched vol. 1 of Capital.
>His theory of immiseration hasn't come to pass either.
his theory of immiseration concerned relative wealth, and it has clearly come to pass: the rift between the working class and the bourgeoisie has grown.
>the countries Marx believed communist revolution would have most likely happen but did not
it will. acting like history is over might've been understandable cope in 1990s, but it's just ridiculous in 2022 when capitalism has been in a continual crisis for almost 15 years.
>His theory on the tendency of the profit rate to fall hasn't bore true either since capitalists have been able to increase profit rates by creating new innovations, inventions and markets from the endless sea of human imagination.
this doesn't defeat the tendency of the profit rate to fall, because the new inventions are immediately produced using the prevailing technology, so the ratio of constant to variable capital is from the start high and the rate of profit corresponds to the existing average.
what you're saying would only be true in a world where technological level didn't transfer between old and new branches of production, but that's just not the case.
>His theory that revolution, through state power, would liberate the proletariat, and lead to communism, was also non-sense
no, it's true

[Anonymous No.20722644]

>>20714990
>200 year old larping is right
LMAO harry potter is more accurate than a jewish bourgeoise larper

[Anonymous No.20723373]

>>20722639
>good thing you immediately show you don't understand the first thing from Marx's theory of value. value is determined by necessary labour given the average level of technology. if your available technology is below average, you're going to be expending more labour
Lol, so you're just using a tautology to say labor power determines the value of a commodity. This is just intellectual dishonesty on your part. Adding the part "if your available technology is below average" is nonsensical - that's not a scientific or a positive statement that could be empirically verified or measured. You're just being a sophist.
>his theory of immiseration concerned relative wealth,
Again, sophistry. No way objectively show this, is what you're saying. Relative means you just stretch the definition of wealth until it satisfies your arguments. This is how the the definition of wealth inequality is manipulated to make inequality seem like a bigger than it really is.
>this doesn't defeat the tendency of the profit rate to fall, because the new inventions are immediately produced using the prevailing technology,
This is circular logic and not true. New technology is developed all the time to reduce working hours and to increase labor productivity per hour. You're really retarded, and using this logic, we would still be using technology from 1860s to produce things. New technology is always creating newer markets and creating newer avenues of profit.
>No
Nah, its never been true. History is a perfect case study against this. Its failed every time as Russia, China and the revolutions of 1989 have shown. Read a history book and stop spamming shit on the internet you samefagging loser. You're always in these threads. Nobody has ever been convinced by you here. And never will.

[Anonymous No.20723380]

>>20720259
>>20722201
>>20722639
This is the same green-spamming tranny commie known for making these threads and spamming his wikipedia understanding of Marxism and trying to debate people. He's a bum and doesn't have a job. He's been doing this for a while. You can immediately pick up on his text style. Ignore him.

[Anonymous No.20723458]

>>20719971
Twitch thots of the world, unite!

[Anonymous No.20723463]

>>20723380
u just ignore any posts that look like that, i scroll by without even noticing as if it were a banner ad

[Anonymous No.20723777]

>>20723373
>Lol, so you're just using a tautology to say labor power determines the value of a commodity.
no, where's the tautology?
>Adding the part "if your available technology is below average" is nonsensical - that's not a scientific or a positive statement that could be empirically verified or measured
it is scientific. you can put 100 people to work producing wooden planks using modern technique and machinery and 100 people producing them using caveman techniques, and you'll consistently see that the former will outproduce the latter manyfold.
you can also examine modern wooden plank production and see that none of the products on the market are produced using caveman methods. from this it follows that there's an average technical level of production and that you can produce below that level, which would make each unit more labour-intensive.
>You're just being a sophist.
yet you're the one who thinks merely saying that something is a "nonsensical unscientific tautology" constitutes an argument. you have nothing against what I said except a bunch of negatively-charged buzzwords, yet I'm the sophist.
>No way objectively show this, is what you're saying.
there is, you just divide the respective incomes at two points in time and compare the ratios
>Relative means you just stretch the definition of wealth until it satisfies your arguments.
no, relative means the ratio between two magnitudes rather that absolute magnitudes. you should go back and get basic education
>This is circular logic and not true
what is the circular logic and not true? are you saying new inventions are produced using caveman technology level rather than than modern level?
>New technology is developed all the time to reduce working hours and to increase labor productivity per hour.
exactly, and this depresses the rate of profit since new technology keeps making production less labour-intensive, which means that per unit there's less profit created and more investment needed.
>You're really retarded, and using this logic, we would still be using technology from 1860s to produce things.
no, that's YOUR argument. if new inventions were to increase the rate of profit as you claim, they would have to be produced using old, more labour-intensive technology. I'm saying that they aren't, which is why they don't boost the rate of profit.
>New technology is always creating newer markets and creating newer avenues of profit.
avenues of profit... at the prevailing rate of profit. not at a higher rate of profit. are you by any chance the retard I talked to like a month ago who didn't even understand the concept of a "rate"? and you still haven't learned it? are you genuinely retarded?
>Its failed every time as Russia, China and the revolutions of 1989 have shown.
1) China and 1989 had nothing to do with communism
2) Marx's theory isn't that proletariat is guaranteed to win every time it takes political power, so Russia doesn't prove anything. funny that you call other people sophists.

[Anonymous No.20723794]

Marxismo as liberalism is an ideology for hylic fags.

[Anonymous No.20723876]

>>20714999
Then why are people still working?

>>20715019
you will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.20723885]

>>20723777
>you can put 100 people to work producing wooden planks using modern technique and machinery and 100 people producing them using caveman techniques,
That explains why Africa and India are doing so well with modern technology. Because, as you've demonstrated so beautifully here, only just giving people technology is enough to produce goods and services - to create wealth. You're so intelligent. Why didn't anyone else think of this? Labor alone doesn't add value to a commodity or even predicts profits. You don't understand that specialized knowledge is important to even make commodities, or make them efficiently. You don't even know how comparative advantage works. Holy shit. And more so, your argument is uniquely retarded. In your scenario, you can't even predict the profit rate - simply producing wood would not make it intrinsically value with your labor you retard. That's why the your belief in a "tendency for the profit rate to fall" is absurd because no one can predict what the profit rate is ahead of time.
>yet you're the one who thinks merely saying
But you a are sophist because you're just just lying about Marx's definition of the labor theory of value and intentionally obscuring his theory. You're a pseud.
The other parts of your post just shows you lack reading comprehension skills. "Relative wealth" can not be measured. Its relative. Its subjective. Wealth in itself is subjective, and is determined by cultural assumptions of class and what is wealth. This is why economists all use different ways of measuring wealth and inequality. Its merely sophistry. You really don't know what you're talking about.
>) China and 1989 had nothing to do with communism
No true Scotsman, wasn't real communism. Not an argument. You're just pushing goalposts on what constitutes as communism because it doesn't meet your idealistic framework. You're so stupid you base your beliefs off an economic system that doesn't work or have any case studies being successful. You're brainless. You claim to be scientific, but your theory has no way to even test itself in reality. In amazing.
> Marx's theory isn't that proletariat is guaranteed to win every time it takes political power
So like I said before, this is just Christian millenarianism. Just give it two more weeks. Kek. You're dumb as shit. Get off /lit/. Nobody here is ever going to support communism because of you.

[Anonymous No.20723898]

>>20715019
If you're going to use v instead of u, at least be consistent you ass

[Anonymous No.20723991]

This is why marginalism overtook LTV - the profit rate can not be predicted by the capitalist because its determined by consumer utility. Adding labor to a product does not give it value, even with technology, because it doesn't guarantee your good can become a commodity. Technology can only create value through social capital, and technology does alone does not predict you'll even make something of value to society. This is why the capitalist does not exploit the worker because the capitalist takes up front risk by giving the worker the POSSIBLE means of producing a profit with no guarantee of making income.
You are economically illiterate, lmfao. Its not even worth the time talking to you. Ah yes, "modern" and "caveman" techniques of producing wood. This is was your argument. Because you're too stupid to understand the contradiction here by pointing out social capital being the factor here and not labor. Kek.

[Anonymous No.20724087]

Social capital is not labor.
Human capital is not labor.
Knowledge is not labor.
Human knowledge creates goods, not labor. I can't farm if I don't have human capital to know how to grow corps. I can't sell my food if I don't have the social capital to create a functioning business. Even with these things; there is no guarantee the goods I produce have the societal need to cover my input costs - the risks I took by becoming a commodity. You don't understand the value of information, and this is why Marxism is ridiculous application of economics. You don't even have a job or run a business, but you want tell people how the economy works. Kek. Spend less time on discord and twitter, and spend more time at a job site.

[Anonymous No.20724095]

>>20723885
>That explains why Africa and India are doing so well with modern technology.
I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but it's indeed true that whatever they produce with new technology that they used to produce without it, requires comparatively less labour per unit of product.
>as you've demonstrated so beautifully here, only just giving people technology is enough to produce goods and services - to create wealth
no, the only thing needed is nature and labour. improved technique only decreases the labour input necessary per unit produced.
>You don't understand that specialized knowledge is important to even make commodities, or make them efficiently.
I do. you're just illiterate, because I said from the start that improved technique means more output per unit of labour.
>You don't even know how comparative advantage works.
what don't I know about it?
>In your scenario, you can't even predict the profit rate
obviously, and neither can you.
>simply producing wood would not make it intrinsically value with your labor you retard
exactly. this is the mistake you made initially that I corrected: you assumed that any labour put into an item would make it more valuable.
>That's why the your belief in a "tendency for the profit rate to fall" is absurd because no one can predict what the profit rate is ahead of time.
lol what? capitalists predict the rate of profit all the time when they decide between different ventures to allocate money to.
>you're just just lying about Marx's definition of the labor theory of value and intentionally obscuring his theory.
what have I lied about regarding his theory? I'm simply explaining it to a moron who "learned" it from a youtube video and in consequence doesn't understand it at all.
>"Relative wealth" can not be measured. Its relative. Its subjective.
no, you just lack middle school level math education. stop embarrassing yourself. I already told you what it means.
>Wealth in itself is subjective
no, in present society it can be objectively measured in US dollars
>This is why economists all use different ways of measuring wealth and inequality. Its merely sophistry.
imagine using the sophist argument par excellence (people disagree about X so there's no truth about X) and then calling the other person a sophist in the very next sentence. your retardation is a true work of art
>Not an argument.
you said it was communist. where's your argument for that? I must've missed it.
>You're just pushing goalposts on what constitutes as communism
where did I place the goalpost initially and to where have I moved it?
>So like I said before, this is just Christian millenarianism. Just give it two more weeks.
so again you're giving up and resorting to another buzzword in place of an argument. that's cool
>Nobody here is ever going to support communism because of you.
great, we wouldn't want clinical retards anywhere near our movement

[Anonymous No.20724119]

>>20714990
because /pol/'s idol got btfo by it. KWAB

[Anonymous No.20724122]

>>20714990
It's right but doesn't solve the problem, people knowing it just make it worse

[Anonymous No.20724128]

This is how you know the "tendency of the profit rate to fall" is absurd and retarded. According to Marxists, companies have the knowledge to know what their rate of profit will be 5, 10, 15 years ahead of time. "Tendency of the profit rate to fall"is loaded statement - there isn't a tendency when profitability is unpredictable. Its speculative. There's no formula that determines when someone will make a lot of money and when they won't, retard. The Marxoid retard is dumb. You probably think all the bourgeois sit in a room and figure out what their profits are going to be. Lmao.

[Anonymous No.20724140]

>>20724095
I already refuted all your arguments. You don't understand the concept of human and social capital. You think goods can become commodities (things that have value in the first place) without knowledge and consumer utility. Green spamming isn't going to work, you're just intentionally trying to gish gallop. Not gonna work because I'm not gonna bother anymore. You're retard. KYS.

[Anonymous No.20724147]

>>20714990
You have to be 18 years of age or older to post here.

[Anonymous No.20724150]

>>20714990
i loved the part where he praised the traditional family unit and where he writes that the bourgeoise have destroyed idyllic, patriarchal gender relations

[Anonymous No.20724181]

>>20724128
they mean profit rate on new products. for example, tesla had a high profit rate on electric cars, but now more competitors are entering the market which will drive down profits overall, though tesla still has some value in their brand compared to rivian or whatever hyuandai is putting out, etc. but yes the rate of profit will fall.this is why venture capitalists want to see you have some kind of "moat" to keep competitors from entering your marketing and driving down the profit margin. the falling rate of profit is good for consumers as it makes those product categories more widely available at lower cost because the value extracted from buyers is less. the falling rate of profit forces companies to innovate by creating more efficient methods of production and more innovative products. rather than being a problem, it's what makes capitalism so good. capitalism has to be divine providence.

[Anonymous No.20724212]

>>20714990
Because westerners refuse to accept that Stalin did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.20724217]

>>20723991
>This is why marginalism overtook LTV - the profit rate can not be predicted by the capitalist because its determined by consumer utility.
consumers are predictable though. they're just humans with human needs. there's a whole industry of market research and there's insane amounts of historical data available on what they're buying and how various factors influence what they buy.
>Adding labor to a product does not give it value
true. what gives it value is rather the fact that it would need a given amount of labour to reproduce.
>This is why the capitalist does not exploit the worker because the capitalist takes up front risk by giving the worker the POSSIBLE means of producing a profit with no guarantee of making income.
for any capitalist that gains zero profit there's one that gains twice the average rate of profit. in aggregate, the entire working class is always exploited by the entire bourgeoisie.
>You are economically illiterate, lmfao.
yeah sure buddy
>Ah yes, "modern" and "caveman" techniques of producing wood. This is was your argument.
yes, what was wrong about what I said?
>Because you're too stupid to understand the contradiction here by pointing out social capital being the factor here and not labor.
what's the contradiction?
>>20724128
>According to Marxists, companies have the knowledge to know what their rate of profit will be 5, 10, 15 years ahead of time.
no, but they make projections
>"Tendency of the profit rate to fall"is loaded statement - there isn't a tendency when profitability is unpredictable.
"global warming can't possibly be true if you can't accurately tell the weather a month from now." this is exactly your argument. another work of beauty (in terms of its retardation)
> There's no formula that determines when someone will make a lot of money and when they won't, retard.
so what? there are prediction methods. unless you want to tell me with a straight face that you couldn't tell whether it'd be more profitable today to invest in video streaming or in DVD rentals
>You probably think all the bourgeois sit in a room and figure out what their profits are going to be.
yes, people typically don't just throw money into things at random.
>>20724140
>I already refuted all your arguments
lol name one
>You don't understand the concept of human and social capital.
what about it don't I understand?
>You think goods can become commodities (things that have value in the first place) without knowledge and consumer utility.
what made you think I don't think that?
>Green spamming isn't going to work, you're just intentionally trying to gish gallop.
show me one example of me gish galloping
>Not gonna work because I'm not gonna bother anymore. You're retard. KYS.
taking the big L. thanks for the talk. you can come back once you learn some basic math concepts and come up with better arguments than calling people sophists. or the weather thing LOL

[Anonymous No.20724490]

>>20715091
>Literal Communist revolutionaries were able to reform the system and enforce 8 hour days, 5 days a week + paid vacation and then the predictions of Marx didn't happen, so Marx was wrong!
People are so unbelievably retarded it boggles the mind

[Anonymous No.20724504]

>>20715651
>Guys, let me explain exactly how and why propaganda works
>Okay, now let me use these exact facts and strategies to propagandize to you
????

[Anonymous No.20724512]

>>20714990
The problem is less Marx and more people like you who believe everything he said.

[Anonymous No.20724513]

>>20716810
>"You can't have free healthcare!" - Only first world country in existence without free healthcare

[Anonymous No.20724518]

>>20715019
actual skitzo

[Anonymous No.20724520]

>>20724504
Goebbels said that propaganda isn’t bad if it’s true

[Anonymous No.20724524]

>>20721802
>The most powerful economic country on the planet which has vastly overtaken the USA is avowedly Marxist
This kills the Libertarian

[Anonymous No.20724538]

>>20724513
It's not free, you pay for it with taxes anyway. I pay tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes and my 'free' healthcare sucks. I'd much rather have that money for myself to pay for it. The government wastes way too much money.

[Anonymous No.20724541]

>>20724520
Pretty sure Hitler wrote that the truth is of secondary importance to the feelings of the people you wish to propagandize to. He essentially said you select the truth they want and use that to manipulate them. Then he goes on in the rest of the book to do exactly that. It's painfully transparent and I can't believe more people don't see that.

[Anonymous No.20724548]

>>20724538
Free at the point of service, quit being a semantic retard. Also private healthcare is way worse, just look at how wasteful and gouging the health insurance system is in the USA

[Anonymous No.20724606]

>>20724548
I just don't feel I get value for my tax dollars. So that's wasteful and gouging as well.

[Anonymous No.20725538]

>>20724524
Yeah, I bet it's a great place to live!

[Anonymous No.20725543]

>>20715043
Have you considered fascism? We're the third-positionists for a reason.

[Anonymous No.20725617]

>>20714990
It's a justification for Jews enslaving mankind.

[Anonymous No.20725657]

>>20719590
>I think more valid criticism of capitalism stem from what it does to the human mind when it becomes large enough scale that capital and companies outgrow the nation and real actual value. The complete destruction of everything outside of money and consumption with people reduced to numbers living in a cynical nihilistic world with no history, tradition, or sense of belonging simply being strung along with dopamine hits.
Like when Marx talks about the central concept of Alienation you mean?

[Anonymous No.20725676]

>>20716816
>Like bruh if you want that real Communist shit without all the CIA idpol bullshit

[Anonymous No.20725688]

>>20724548
>Free at the point of service,
Abstracting the cost doesn't mean it doesn't exist, retard.
>Also private healthcare is way worse,
Like most Americans, I like my private healthcare, and I don't give a fuck what you think.

[Anonymous No.20725696]

>>20715043
>capitalist hell
Have you considered suicide?

[Anonymous No.20725703]

>>20724490
>Literal Communist revolutionaries were able to reform the system and enforce 8 hour days, 5 days a week
Guild system, and trade union movement, was reducing working hours and improving workplace conditions for centuries before Marx was even alive, and before there was even a communist movement in the West, retard. You don't even anything about basic history, lmao.

[Anonymous No.20725717]

>>20725703
>>Literal Communist revolutionaries were able to reform the system and enforce 8 hour days, 5 days a week
The guild system, and trade union movement, was reducing working hours and improving workplace conditions for centuries before Marx was even alive, and before there was even a communist movement in the West, retard. You don't even know anything basic history, retard.

[Anonymous No.20725736]

>>20725676
The online right is pretty polarized by the Russia/Ukraine thing. I think a lot of the more naive, simplistic contrarian ones are confused by the narrative reversal on Russia. Putin used to make liberals mad, so he's based, but now he's supposed to be cringe??? And NATO is cringe, but it's backing Ukrainian nationalists???? The predictable happens in this age of narratives, each side builds a new narrative to re-capture reality and soothe their anxiety. For example, that Ukrainian nationalists are Jewish fags or whatever.

Personally I'm with Ukraine, as a small nation, and against both US-NATO/CIA/deep state imperialism and Russian imperialism. As a fascist my ideal is a European "third way" that preserves Europe's multiplicity in unity and unity in multiplicity, against both Russo-Mongoloid all-flattening imperialism and Anglo-American all-flattening imperialism, and whatever mixture of international bankers and Jews exists behind either/both.

It's sad how few terminally online right-wingers are aware this used to be a defining feature of fascism. It's why fascist Europe was the first historic bloc to wage global war against capitalism (and its blind retarded golem, the USSR), and why after WW2, surviving fascists exported much of fascist ideology to create "third worldism" and Arab nationalism, to continue the struggle of creating a third world-axis, enslaved to neither Bolshevik nor Anglo-American empire.

[Anonymous No.20725812]

>>20725688
>I like my private healthcare
Because you have the money to pay for it. The point of "free healthcare" is not that it's free but that everybody should get the same treatment in case of illness regardless of income.

[Anonymous No.20725813]

>>20723380
Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed the greentext marxist tranny. He ruins every fucking thread about Marxism with this. What kind of literal social retard wouldn't know how off-putting this is (only bothering to link to a few here)
>>20723777
>>20724095
>>20724217

[Anonymous No.20725833]

>>20714990
It's scripture

[Anonymous No.20725835]

>>20725812
>Because you have the money to pay for it.
I pay money for it, retard, because I enjoy what I receive.
>The point of "free healthcare" is not that it's free but that everybody should get the same treatment
That's impossible to deliver because doctors, hospitals, and treatments are finite, and no one has the same body. You have to learn how to take care of yourself, and accept the risks. Stop being afraid of life.
>>20725813
All the faggots like him are parasocial retards who don't go outside. They're all from Discord and twitter.
>>20725736
This is just political theory masturbation. I don't really care about the online right or left. I just like to mock these people for my entertainment. I don't care about their stupid, futile plans about the world. They're all essentially political hobbyists who spend too much time online.

[Anonymous No.20725839]

>>20714990
Not a Marxist but the Manifesto is a meme. Start with "Wage, Labor, and Capital" and Engel's "What is Communism" to get a good primer on their thinking.

[Anonymous No.20725843]

>>20725812
I'm satisfied with my own healthcare, and I don't feel like paying more in taxes for other people. Sorry. If you want pay for peoples' healthcare - do it yourself. You're not going to use the government to take money from me to do it. I don't care about your dumb ass virtue signalling on the issue.

[Anonymous No.20725887]

>>20725843
It's disturbing to see what counts as virtue signalling in America.

[Anonymous No.20725893]

>>20725887
>see how woke I'm for wanting to take money from you to pay for services for other people!
>I'm such a humanitarian!
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.20725904]

>>20725893
>taxes are virtue signaling

[Anonymous No.20725935]

>>20725904
>My social policy positions that won't be taxed for since I don't make the income to be taxed for it aren't virtue signaling
Its virtual signaling and greed, correct. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.20725973]

>>20725935
>>My social policy positions that won't be taxed for since I don't make the income to be taxed for it aren't virtue signaling
I pay my taxes, THOUGH.

[Anonymous No.20726064]

>>20715043
Your in the wrong circles. people who focus on the economic analysis are far less annoying and actually follow materialist thought

[Anonymous No.20726311]

>Everything he said is right.
lol no

[Anonymous No.20726339]

>>20725688
>Abstracting the cost doesn't mean it doesn't exist, retard.
If you think people say "free healthcare" meaning literally no one gets paid, you are the certified retard
>I don't give a fuck what you think.
This is somewhat undermined by the fact that you took the time to respond to me

[Anonymous No.20726367]

>>20725843
That's right, friend. Stop paying your taxes. Nothing bad could possibly happen :)

[Anonymous No.20726446]

>>20722201
>>20722639
>>20723777
>>20724095
>>20724217
How can one person be so fucking retarded and obnoxious and wrong on every point

[Anonymous No.20726491]

>>20716816
>Maupin
Mauling is an actual meme. Have you seen that ridiculous pic of the dude in front of a giant Lincoln bust, flanked by red and American flags? The dude is the personification of the far left in America. They all want to be Xi Jinping giving a speech at the CCP’s 100 Year celebration. Very few of them want to be the Xi Jinping who was busting his ass on a farm in rural China. The only leftist leader in America I respect is Chris Smalls.

[Anonymous No.20726638]

>>20715091
>He believed that human nature isn't real
Nigger

[Anonymous No.20726660]

>>20714990
labor theory of value is wrong. the idea that metternich, the pope, the tsar of russian, and guizot were conspiring with each other to stop communism in 1848 is unbelievable wrong and schizophrenic that it's mindboggling how people still take anything a schizo like Marx said seriously

[Anonymous No.20726927]

>>20715091
read up on socialist markets, from marx to mises, and cockshott.

[Anonymous No.20726940]

>>20726660
https://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

[Anonymous No.20726946]

>>20726940
reads just like one of those medieval proofs of god's existence

[Anonymous No.20726950]

>>20726660
That's not what they thought though, what are you talking about? They had an extremely realpolitik analysis of the events of 1848-1851, in fact it informs the entire development of their thought in subsequent decades, because they realized that the proletariat will inevitably be betrayed in any petty bourgeois revolution. Communism was stopped because it couldn't spontaneously organize and conceive of itself as a distinct force, the revolutions failed with the June days and with the pathetically weak and confused bourgeoisie in Germany (from Marx's and Engels' perspective).

[Anonymous No.20726956]

>>20726660
also LTV isn't marx, dumbass

[Anonymous No.20726987]

I just don't get the appeal of communism. Like when white nationalists say "we want to deport all the non-whites" I can easily envision what that means and how that *might* change things for the better. But when commie libtards start waffling on about how "the proletariat will own the means of production and practice workplace democracy and receive labor vouchers," I'm not really seeing what's immediately compelling about that.

[Anonymous No.20727043]

>>20726987
In the 1840s it had special relevance and was extremely visible, "the social question" was on EVERYBODY'S lips in 1840 and even tons of liberal and progressive writers were inclined towards socialist or proto-socialist stuff, precocious by our standards. Engels was in England in 1842 seeing the conditions of the working class under the Chartist movement and it really did look like a revolution was imminent, also spontaneous organization and solidarity out of obvious self-interest seemed to be the norm. They correctly predicted the Spring of Nations revolutions of 1848, but were bitterly disappointed that they were just that, mixed national-liberal revolutions. They also bitterly criticized all the figures like Louis Blanc and Proudhon, who tried to work pragmatically with the existing bourgeois revolutionary regimes to institute workers' co-ops and stuff, so that social reform would happen over time without need for instant expropriation.

Tldr it seemed very real in the 1840s. Remember also the German state went from promising a lot of liberal constitutional reforms, a French revolution from the top down, to being conservative and reasserting the monarchy using "reactionary" romanticism, etc., in the 1840s. So Marx and Engels, from perpetually pissed off revolutionary Berlin and its experimental leftist/communist cadres, were already especially pissed off and saw the whole 19th century through the lens of "reaction vs. revolution." Marx's so called "discovery of the proletariat" takes place in the middle 1840s, and for him the proletariat becomes the logical class to carry out the revolution, because it is the class inevitably depressed and expropriated by the current economic and social system and its political fronts (constitutional monarchies, parliaments, etc.).

The subsequent decades are just them trying to tactically organize and situate the proletariat for what they thought were more inevitable shocks and crises, and again they were often very good at predicting economic crashes from fluctuations in the market. There were some pretty big depressions and crashes in the second half of the 19th century, basically endemic to industrial capitalism. Engels in 1895 just before his death still thought another big revolutionary shock moment was just around the corner.

During this post-1848 tactical organization period, the Socialist Party was founded in Germany under Marx's and Engels' decisive influence, became the leading countercultural movement, almost a state within a state in Germany, was banned and repressed by Bismarck which only made it stronger. Everything about this period just reinforced the solidarity and feeling like revolution was imminent, that the proletariat was a breakaway society waiting for its chance to seize the mainstream and remake it.

It's only just after Engels' death that there's a crisis in the party when Bernstein, Engels' protege, famously says "uh I think capitalism is getting stronger, not weaker."

[Anonymous No.20727046]

>>20727043
Sorry I keep saying the German state in this post but I should say the Prussian state prior to 1870-71.

[Anonymous No.20727050]

>>20727043
as someone said
>marx mistook capitalism's birth pangs for it's death throes

[Anonymous No.20727188]

>>20715091
>He believed that human nature isn't real and is shaped by society which just isn't true
Not sure about that, he did believe people want to do sruff instead of lying on their asses all day. Also, humans are naturally cooperative, that's why we could build civilizations.
Unfortunately, capitalist mentality undermines this by turning us one against another and slows down our collective progress with tons of bullshit that exist just because capitalism is obsolete with modern tech and needs a lot of extra mechanisms to function.

[Anonymous No.20727292]

>>20726446
can you name a single thing I'm wrong on and prove it?
>>20726987
because you're either a middle class kid in school or a neet loser fed by your parents. why would you expect anything related to the plight of the proletariat to be immediately compelling to you?

[Anonymous No.20727314]

>>20727292
>the plight of the proletariat
see this kinda talk means nothing to me... like what are you even talking about lol. have you ever tried expressing yourself like a normal person?

[Anonymous No.20727359]

>>20726660
Modern day China, the #1 economic powerhouse in the world, is avowedly Marxist. Sorry old chap, Marx's thought is so powerful that even pseudo state-capitalist-commies are catapulted to the forefront of world economics just by studying his work. Liberal capitalists take a big fat L, just as Marx predicted.

[Anonymous No.20727364]

Things will never be as simple as when I was twelve years old
Reading Karl Marx in my bedroom alone

[Anonymous No.20727366]

>>20727050
>Marx points out how fucked up and inhumane capitalism is
>Marxists work to un-fuck it up as much as possible
>Retards like you: "capitalism was just being born!"

[Anonymous No.20727373]

>>20727292
or maybe it's because communists have terrible propaganda and messaging. As usual, communism is more of an interesting intellectual theory, really just a brainteaser, for bourgeois college students.

[Anonymous No.20727379]

>>20726987
A world with less inequality, less exploitation, less wars, where each worker has a higher degree of freedom and choice in their workplace.
Do you genuinely enjoy being a wage slave ? Or are you just so used to this that the entire concept of grand social change seems absurd ?

[Anonymous No.20727386]

>>20727379
Wage slavery is a prerequisite of freedom. If I can't have slaves then I can't be free. Freedom is only power relative to other people.

[Anonymous No.20727395]

>>20727379
Everyone wants that retard, it's just that nobody believes communism will deliver on it, and additionally will bring along with it a bunch of insane bullshit social ideology.

[Anonymous No.20727410]

>>20727379
White nationalists can give you a clear vision
>Imagine New York but there's no black people
Andrew Yang types can be like
>Imagine free money deposited right into your bank account
Technofuturist-whatever types are like
>Imagine robots do all the work and you get to do whatever you like all day
Commie offers are much more vague... there's no clear picture painted.
The smarter ones who know the power of iconoclasm and the allure of revolution are like
>Imagine killing your boss and taking all his stuff
The dullard evangelists have only shit like "less equality" lol .
I don't know if less equality or less exploitation will or won't work out in my favor y'know. It's pretty weak stuff man...

[Anonymous No.20727417]

>>20727395
So it's not that you can't see the appeal you moron, it's that you don't believe it's feasible.
Either way, democracy in the workplace is real and not that radical, you just need enough class consciousness to limit the power of private capital without even needing to abolish it. With that you already have far less inequality, poverty and exploitation in the workplace.
Imperialist wars on the other hand are a direct consequence of the division of the global market under capitalism, where superpowers will collide in order to defend their Capital's interests. Limiting private ownership of the economy would already improve that greatly, but abolishing it would be a huge step towards ending war as we know it.

[Anonymous No.20727425]

Progressive libs too have a bolder vision
>Imagine being able to become a woman with big titties
>Imagine transcending every biological limitation... sex, race, etc.
>Imagine limitless sensual pleasure and no pain
I can see why people might find that compelling. More so than labor vouchers lol.
Even in commie utopia you still have to work and attend meetings afterwards lmao

[Anonymous No.20727426]

>>20727417
Obviously only a feasible image is going to be appealing you infantile tranny idiot.

[Anonymous No.20727443]

>>20727410
Imagine a workplace where you have a voice and aren't a whore to your dumb boss. Workers decide on their activities and the asshole investors don't get to fire thousands at once just because their profit margins have dipped.
This isn't a fucking utopia, there is will and strength to do it but not the coordination.

[Anonymous No.20727451]

>>20715019
based

[Anonymous No.20727454]

>>20727426
And you think deporting all the niggers is feasible ?
Workplace democracy isn't that farfetched, certainly not as much as deporting millions/tens of millions. Labor unions already push in that direction, socialist parties too.
If only people stop being so fucking passive about everything, join a fucking union/party and actually work to get something done this could be our future. Instead morons like you will sit here and say "it's a utopia" and continue to waste their lives working crap jobs to crap bosses for a crap salary.

[Anonymous No.20727473]

>>20727443
Honestly I'd rather have the Yangbucks and not work at all. I don't much trust unions not to be run by commie freaks with weird agendas.

[Anonymous No.20727486]

>>20718053
Yes, this is a core point of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.20727496]

>>20727473
If it makes you feel better, they're actually run by organized crime.

[Anonymous No.20727520]

>>20714990
Their seeming inability to separate the "let's have businesses be co-ops" stuff from the "countries and families are bourgeois tyranny" stuff. Probably because they realize that the former without the latter is perfectly acceptable to those dastardly fascist reactionaries.

[Count Olaf No.20727546]

What was his problem?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.20727567]

>>20726940
>Not a single mention of how it is possible to quantify the magnitude of fundamentally non-reducible unit of "labor" that supposedly exists in the world alongside other scientifically measurable phenomena like atoms

Amazing proof, much science

[Anonymous No.20727578]

>>20727567
Fuck off tripfag, no one cares about your triumphant return, you are a faggot and nobody remembers you except me and I'd kick your fucking head in.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.20727589]

That's nice, now go eat a dick

[Anonymous No.20727611]

>>20727473
Vaccines should be mandatory, hyper individualism is destroying contemporary society

[Anonymous No.20727623]

>>20716719
How the fuck is starvation inherent to capitalism?

[Anonymous No.20727635]

>>20727623
I'm retarded and didn't read the part about having enough food, the point still stands because famines are mostly regional so it's understandable that they occur while others have food, there's no easy fix because you if you will just give them enough food then their agriculture will die off and niggers will breed like rabits again repeating the whole process.

[Anonymous No.20727697]

>>20727314
>see this kinda talk means nothing to me... like what are you even talking about lol.
no shit. stop repeating yourself. I've already explained why you're completely detached from the class that communism exclusively concerns
>>20727373
no, the vast majority bourgeois college students "just don't get the appeal of communism", just like anon here
>>20727623
because in capitalist society food is produced and distributed for the purpose of making profit, not for the purpose of feeding people. and price fluctuations combined with constantly returning crises of profitability guarantee that it's never profitable to feed everyone.
profitability requires a minimum price threshold, and whether the buyer can pay it is determined by his wage. but his wage is a cost for capital, which capital strives to reduce as much as possible. on average, it's going to undershoot with this reduction for half the workers, but for the other half it's going to overshoot, and if they were already at an existential minimum, that means they will no longer be able to afford the profitable sale price of food for all the calories they need.
then there's also the reserve army of labour, which is kept unemployed to be drawn from temporarily when the business cycle approaches its highest point, and which overall acts as a tool for depressing the wages of the workers.
sustaining the reserve army is also ultimately a cost for capital (state welfare funded from taxes or extra wages for workers when the welfare state is absent or inadequate). as such, capital strives to decrease it also, and with this also puts some members of the reserve army below the level at which they're able to properly feed themselves.

[Anonymous No.20728077]

>>20714999
Yes. From the 1848 revolution, to the paris commune (1871) to revolutionary Catalonia (1936), to the budapest commune, to june 1968, to polish strikes in early 1980s, to occupy wall street, to the spanish los indignados, to the yellow vests. One day, Proletarians will break their chains. Some (most?) of us will see it, during our life.

[Anonymous No.20728079]

>>20715651
I don't know, i've read it 20 years ago. Today it seems to be another Capitalism reformism.

[Anonymous No.20728086]

>>20714990
Marx would put all today's leftist degenerates into the Gulag.

[Anonymous No.20728087]

>>20718038
Capitalism has been debunked, with the TRPF.

[Anonymous No.20728094]

>>20718026
>Soviet Russia implemented every plank.
Soviet russia never abolished wage labor. Nor commodity. Nor money.

[Anonymous No.20728101]

>>20728086
Marx doesn't want to put anybody into the Gulag. Only to emancipate the proletariat. There was no gulag in revolutionary catalonia.

[Anonymous No.20728108]

>>20728101
He also hated muslims and niggers.

[Anonymous No.20728164]

>>20715043
>cannot stand any communist I meet and despise all the add-on bullshit they've slapped onto the Marxist car these days
>The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from. the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible--the really disquieting--prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

[Anonymous No.20728806]

>>20715091
>>20714990
Marx is completely overrated compared to Lenin and Stalin desu

[Anonymous No.20728819]

>>20714990
This shit is outdated and doesn't matter anymore. Marxists transformed into whiners about muh colonialism, muh minority rights while still waiting for their utopia.

[Anonymous No.20728835]

>>20726987
>>20727043
Now I consider myself an reactionary but even I can see why Marxism was and to an extent is so popular. The industrial revolution absolutely fucked the worker (and everyone to an extent really) to the point they worked the largest amount of hours in human history in inhuman conditions medieval slaves would be horrified at.

Of course people would go schizophrenic over that; Even now hours are still slightly higher than before the industrial revolution, and advertainment is getting into everything. When you look at how many modern conditions Americans have coped themselves into believing are normal - well it only sets up a massive powderkeg for later in this century.

[Anonymous No.20728945]

>>20718026
the planks didn't purport to express what constituted socialism. they only expressed what would've been first appropriate steps towards socialism for a proletarian dictatorship to take in 1850s Germany.
and the text literally says as much before listing them. but you obviously haven't read it, you're just repeating memes like a drone. the text reads:
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class
"the proletariat organized as the ruling class" in the process of wresting capital from the bourgeoisie is the dictatorship of the proletariat. it's not yet socialism, because in socialism classes no longer exist and there's no capital.
>Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order
"in the beginning", "measures... which appear economically insufficient and untenable... but which [later] outstrip themselves"
so, again, it's abundantly clear that those are just immediate measures of the dictatorship that are only the very beginning on the path from proletariat's class dictatorship to socialism. not only do they not constitute socialism, but they would quickly outstrip themselves before socialism is even reached.

[Anonymous No.20729013]

>>20718026
>>20728945
also you say that Russia implemented every plank, but this is expressly contradicted by the first few words of the first plank:
1. Abolition of property in land
meanwhile in the USSR a large part of the land effectively belonged either to the kolkhozes or personally to the kolkhozniks

[Anonymous No.20729246]

>>20716708
Yeah it’s hardly Marxist that’s why every self-proclaimed Marxist on the planet supports that shit. It’s totally in accordance with Marx’s theories to support the erosion of society through trannyism and gay sex

[Anonymous No.20729458]

>>20729246
retard

[Anonymous No.20729679]

>>20727314
There are a large amount of people who own nothing, therefore the only way for them to live is to work (sell the one thing they own, their own labor). Therefore, the market conditions regarding labor dictate exactly what their conditions will be in life, and they have extremely little power to do anything else. This is the underlying reason for the Marxist "class divide", when you own capital, you have an abundance of choice and can chart your own course in life, when you have none, you are at helpless at the whims of the wider market

[Anonymous No.20730323]

>>20715027
Marxism is popular because it convinces idiots they are smart. Look at these idiots.
>>20715043
>>20715019
>>20715058
>>20715642

[Anonymous No.20730330]

>>20716810
Based. Midwits seething

[Anonymous No.20730403]

why is it always wordcels that are the communists?

[Anonymous No.20730680]

>>20729458
Prove how it’s not Marxist to support intersectionality and LGBT politics. Every dumbfuck on this board tries to argue that it isn’t yet IRL Marxists care deeply about all of that.

[Anonymous No.20730828]

>>20730680
name one

[Anonymous No.20730835]

>>20715091
>He believed that human nature isn't real and is shaped by society which just isn't true and also operates on a purely materialist worldview.
read pic related
>His predictions didn't come to pass and a lot of his core gripes with capitalism have largely been resolved through reform.
his main problem with capitalism is wage labor, no amount of reforms will fix that

[Anonymous No.20730839]

>>20730835
oops forgot pic

[Anonymous No.20730870]

>>20730680
Idk what's lgbt politics but the strawman you'll probably use is identity politics, which marxists are not about

[Anonymous No.20731027]

>>20730828
Angela Davis

[Anonymous No.20731122]

>>20731027
>In the 2020 presidential election, Davis supported the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden.
lmao nice Marxism

[Anonymous No.20731147]

>>20731122
when she was youngish she bought the black panthers some guns that they used to kidnap a judge or something, she got off though because she has a privileged background, i think the panther guys died in prison, can't remember, long time since i believed in or cared about marxism.

[Anonymous No.20731497]

>>20731122
>cpusa-tard degenerates into being an ordinary liberal
many such cases. reject stalin, read trotsky

[Anonymous No.20731504]

>>20730835
>his core gripes with capitalism have largely been resolved through reform
lol his core gripe with capitalism was that it amounts to capitalists wielding the levers of state power, and that has not been resolved by reform

[Anonymous No.20731712]

>>20715665
lies

[Anonymous No.20732017]

>>20731497
Trotskyists are the ones that universally become libshits wtf are you talking about

[Anonymous No.20732084]

>>20715091

>capitalism have largely been resolved through reform.

Is there a reason to read books if you turn out just as stupid/ignorant as normies?

[Anonymous No.20732147]

>>20727188
>capitalism is obsolete with modern tech and needs a lot of extra mechanisms to function
elaborate on this, been wanting to find more books on this subject

[Anonymous No.20732148]

Why people speak with so much certainty things which they dont understand? Dont you feel ashamed of repeating liberal ideology taught by people much more rich than you and that wants to enslave you and keep you in perpetual poverty?

[Anonymous No.20732156]

>>20732148
>Dont you feel ashamed of repeating liberal ideology taught by people much more rich than you and that wants to enslave you and keep you in perpetual poverty?

[Anonymous No.20732165]

>>20727379
>A world with less inequality, less exploitation, less wars,
So basically hippie, moralist non-sense?

[Anonymous No.20732184]

>>20728094
>Soviet russia never abolished wage labor. Nor commodity. Nor money.
Yeah, we know, its never real communism. I don't even know why you would want to abolish wage labor or money. Are you going kill people making money or employing wagies to stop them from doing so? Do you retards ever think about the implications of doing such policies? For example, when the Spanish Anarchists abolished money, and let people take whatever they want, they wasted resources through over-consumption and people stop working so there were shortages. They had to reintroduce money to give people a reason to work, and to restrict people from being wasteful.

[Anonymous No.20732190]

>>20732156
Lol the establishment only shill liberal democratic bullcrap about niggers and faggots. Why would rich people speak agains their own interest? If you talk with almost every leftist they will say they think comunism is too authoritarian or that they dont think it can be done in practice. The right wing types will not even consider reading about it (excluding far right), because they have read or watched one of their jewish masters talking about how capitalism is actually fair and that you are just lazy and the system isnt cracking and the world getting worse

[Anonymous No.20732214]

>>20727697
>because in capitalist society food is produced and distributed for the purpose of making profit, not for the purpose of feeding people
This argument is stupid considering starvation is pretty much abolished in societies that produce food on a profit basis. Even the homeless in America never go hungry because of all the food produced. You don't understand the purpose of profits. They're an information feedback loop that tells producers what consumers want - they essentially tell producers what societies need. Its an incentive to encourage the production of certain products meet demand that reflects real human need.
>then there's also the reserve army of labour
Another stupid argument... you need to learn what structural unemployment is. This is just the reality of fact not everyone has the skills to take the jobs available, lack the desire to work, the existence of occupational licensing regulations that reduce amount of jobs available, the fact certain places have a limited amount of jobs because don't have the money to hire people, environmental circumstances (pandemics, wars, instability) putting people out of work, and the fact some people are too old or disabled to work. This isn't unique to modern times either. Its always been like this.

[Anonymous No.20732219]

>>20732190
KYS - nobody wants to hear your 100x spiel and cope about >"not muh real leftism!" Fuck off and die, parasite.

[Anonymous No.20732237]

>>20732219
Enjoy your capitalism, dream of getting rich (which you will never will be), live in your pod and eat your cricket. At least comunism presents a real possibility of change and breaking of what we have here, even if its not perfect

[Anonymous No.20732242]

>>20732237
>At least comunism presents a real possibility of change and breaking of what we have here, even if its not perfect

[Anonymous No.20732326]

>>20723380
yeah I notice him in every thread

[Anonymous No.20732350]

>>20732148
It’s a pretty simple through-line. Marx and Engels wrote that capitalism will destroy all social customs and traditional structures such as religion, gender, family, culture and production. Currently, we are watching all of these disintegrate on a massive scale in every developed country which is causing a significant crisis. It also happens that leftists are the ones who support the destruction of all these values since they anticipate the birth of a new system and ideological apparatus. This is all very Marxian. It’s true that liberal democracy is in charge of the world and causing all of this decay but that doesn’t contradict Marx’s predictions. Leftists can support liberal democracy on the basis that its contradictions will accelerate its demise. This is why every institution is becoming progressive (with the exception of law and finance) and leftists are aligned with the establishment.

The only question is, are leftists supporting this as part of a grand Marxist plot, or are they themselves simply products of liberal degeneracy? I believe the latter personally.

[Anonymous No.20732598]

>>20714990
pipe dream, only kids believe it or morons who watched too much Star Trek.
>>20724513
>free
on this Earth there are only a couple of t hings really free, like air, water, food(if you hunt in the forest) that's about it, the rest cost money or emotions/time. In europe if you make 3500 $ per month, you pay around 250$ for healthcare alone, without others taxes.

[Anonymous No.20732607]

>>20714999
2 more weeks

[Anonymous No.20732656]

>>20714990
>Everything he said is right.
>t. idiot who literally did not read the communist manifesto

You fucken realize the entire manifesto is literally 99% this
>See this organization <insert name her> ?!
>They are not me ! They are not MARX !
>Only obey ME MARX !

I swear 99% of it is like this.

[Anonymous No.20732671]

>>20715651
>Why does this shit make people seeth so much
>t. idiot who literally did not read the book

You realize that book is literally
>Dear diary Adolph here today dad wanted me to become a burocrat like him
>However I reject it all want to be a painter and run around in the grass and outside I will be an artist not a pencil pusher Q_Q
>PS: I hate going to school and learning things

Quote that part next time in white power rally.

[Anonymous No.20732857]

>>20731147
yeah, it's pretty clear she has nothing to do with Marxism beyond the superficial. Lenin:
>Individual terrorism, bred of intellectualist impotence, is gradually becoming a thing of the past. Instead of spending tens of thousands of rubles and a vast amount of revolutionary energy on the assassination of some Sergei (who probably did more to make Moscow revolutionary-minded than many revolutionaries), on assassinations “in the name of the people”—military operations together with the people are now commencing.
those kinds of people only care about adrenaline and self-aggrandizement. they have zero connection to the proletariat's class struggle.
>>20731497
>degenerates into
she was never not a liberal in the first place, not unlike the so-called "Trotskyists"
>>20732184
>I don't even know why you would want to abolish wage labor or money.
because they're incompatible with humanity controlling its production, which is the content of the proletariat's liberation from under the boot of capital
>Are you going kill people making money or employing wagies to stop them from doing so?
no. if a kid in preschool hogs a new toy and doesn't let other kids play with it, do you need to kill the kid to take it away? actually maybe you would, I don't know how deep your retardation reaches
>For example, when the Spanish Anarchists abolished money, and let people take whatever they want, they wasted resources through over-consumption and people stop working so there were shortages.
that's why Marx is explicit that in a lower phase of communist society there will have to be rationing, rather than "letting people take whatever they want".
>They had to reintroduce money to give people a reason to work, and to restrict people from being wasteful.
you don't need to reintroduce money for this. all you need is to withhold distribution of the social product to people who don't work despite being able-bodied.

[Anonymous No.20732861]

>>20732214
800 million people globally are undernourished
>You don't understand the purpose of profits. They're an information feedback loop that tells producers what consumers want
no. according to that logic people who are undernourished and can't afford more food don't want more food.
in reality, profits don't tell them what people need or want and in what quantity, but only the conjunction of what people want and __what can be sold to them over its cost of production + normal profit rate (= bigger than the interest rate, at the very least)__.
this is because, as I said, the purpose of production is to sell with profit. feeding people is only one of possible preconditions for selling food with profit (but not by all means a necessary condition -- the capitalist doesn't care if the person who buys the food from him will just use it to feed his pet tigers and keep some people who can't afford food hungry).
>This is just the reality of fact not everyone has the skills to take the jobs available
the "jobs available" under capitalism are determined by what labour can be profitably exploited in any given circumstances. so, as I said, the barrier is defined by profitability of capital
>lack the desire to work
where "work" means specifically that work which is available according to capitalist profit calculations, and with a pay that is also so determined
>the existence of occupational licensing regulations that reduce amount of jobs available, the fact certain places have a limited amount of jobs because don't have the money to hire people
see "jobs available" above. "don't have the money to hire people" also just means that hiring them is not profitable. because there's always enough capital floating around. the problem is that to preserve itself as capital, it must exploit labour. so it can't be used to pay people to do jobs that aren't profitable or, if not profitable, aren't expenditures of labour necessary for bourgeois society to contiune functioning.
>environmental circumstances (pandemics, wars, instability) putting people out of work
all caused by capitalism, or rather internal to it
>and the fact some people are too old or disabled to work
those people aren't part of the reserve army of labour. obviously they will always exist, but the cost of feeding them will not always remain a deduction from the profit of capital in a society where the motive of production is making profit. cost which capital incessantly pushes down on, without any regard for whether some people starve in the process (until, of course, all the starving people begin to cause problems for capitalist production -- Nazi concentration camps are an example of how capital can deal with that problem)

[Anonymous No.20733427]

>>20714990
It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.20733921]

>>20716816
>Logo, Haz
these guys are just unpopular Destiny
If you want someone "respectable" it's only Hakim and that guy is still trash. "western communism" is a fucking mental illness.

[Anonymous No.20733945]

>>20724548
>free at the point of your GDP is shit and your race is dying off at an alarming rate and 60% of your shitty, shitty, horrible, godawful salary goes to other fat people's incredibly expensive "free" healthcare
and you wonder why it's failing. i bet you blame someone else.